Single-center experience with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms treated by open or endovascular repair using fenestrated/branched endografts

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs) treated with open repair (OR) or fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) from a single center.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with cAAAs treated electively by OR or F/B-EVAR between January 2010 and February 2017 was conducted. Demographics of the patients, cardiovascular risk factors, procedure time, number of vessels incorporated, radiation dose, estimated blood loss, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS were recorded. End points included target vessel patency, aneurysm rupture, freedom from reintervention, and major adverse events (MAEs).

Results:

During this period, 153 patients (OR, 69; F/B-EVAR, 84) underwent repair of cAAA. The majority were male (OR, 55; F/B-EVAR, 64), with a mean age of 75.8 ± 7.6 years (F/B-EVAR) and 71.2 ± 7.9 years (OR). Patients in the F/B-EVAR group were more likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 and 4 (60% vs 0%; P < .001) and had a higher median Society for Vascular Surgery/American Association for Vascular Surgery comorbidity severity score (15 vs 7; P < .001). A total of 235 vessels were targeted in the F/B-EVAR group, with a technical success of 97.6%. Thirty-one patients in the OR group required concomitant renal artery revascularization. Transfusion requirements (100% vs 1.2%), MAEs (40.6% vs 13.1%), procedure length (304 minutes vs 140 minutes), estimated blood loss (2246 mL vs 165 mL), ICU LOS (3 days vs 1 day), and hospital LOS (7 days vs 2 days) were higher (P < .001) in the OR group compared with the F/B-EVAR group. The 30-day mortality was 2.9% and 2.4% (P = .84) in the OR group and F/B-EVAR group, respectively. Supraceliac clamp site was associated with increased incidence of postoperative renal insufficiency. A decrease in procedure time, contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, and fluoroscopy dose was noted in the F/B-EVAR group with increasing experience even as case complexity increased. More patients were discharged home after F/B-EVAR (97.6% vs 59.4%; P < .001). With a mean follow-up of 31 months (F/B-EVAR, 17 months; OR, 48 months), the rate of secondary intervention was 3.7% and 5.8% (P = NS) for F/B-EVAR and OR, respectively. Freedom from branch instability and reintervention was 99% (95% confidence interval, 96.2%-99.8%) and 96% (95% confidence interval, 87.1%-98.6%), respectively.

Conclusions:

Results of this “real-world” experience suggest that the use of F/B-EVAR for the treatment of cAAAs in high-risk surgical patients is safe and effective and has comparable short-term results to those of low-risk patients undergoing OR. Patients treated by F/B-EVAR had shorter ICU and hospital LOS, lower MAEs, and faster convalescence. A decrease in procedure time and radiation dose was noted as experience was gained, even as complexity increased.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles